Shocking Emails Show NRA Worked to Prohibit Rifles From National Parks

[44Brent]

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/...orked-to-prohibit-rifles-from-national-parks/

You know things are bad for the National Rifle Association when it has to get the New York Times to run a puff piece on it.

But in their zeal to get a puff piece out there as well as their collaboration with the left on the DISCLOSE Act, the NRA has angered a number of people on Capitol Hill.

Shocking new e-mails obtained by RedState show that the National Rifle Association actively opposed and sought to undermine gun-rights legislation offered in the Senate by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

The New York Times article contains this paragraph:

With a push from the N.R.A., a popular bill last year restricting credit card lenders came with an odd add-on: It also allowed people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

This is referring to legislation by Senator Tom Coburn, which would have allowed rifles and pistols into national parks — legislation the NRA actively tried to undermine. In other words, in getting their puff piece written by the New York Times, the NRA is taking credit for things the NRA actively tried to stop. That is not the whole story.

A congressional aide tells me, “You’re absolutely right that many conservatives view the NRA as an organization that represents itself rather than the 2nd amendment. For instance, the NRA was livid when Senator Coburn introduced the guns in the park amendment without their permission. The NRA worked to undermine the amendment.”

Specifically, the NRA tried to weaken the guns in parks language working with House Democratic leadership (after it passed the Senate overwhelmingly). The Coburn language returned to the states complete authority to determine firearm possession laws in national parks and refuges. This change mirrored similar regulations governing firearm possession for the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. In some instances, this would result in park and refuge visitors being allowed to carry handguns and rifles in national parks. Ironically, the National “RIFLE” Association wanted to change it so that Coburn’s legislation did not include “rifles” or other long firearms.

Another source familiar with the behind the scenes machinations on the DC voting rights bill tells me that despite the claims in the New York Times article, “the NRA had nothing to do with the addition of the DC Gun language to the DC voting rights bill. Senator Ensign did not give the NRA a heads-up for fear that Reid would block the Amendment, because the NRA would have ratted Ensign out to Reid. They may have helped in the House to make sure the DC voting rights bill include gun rights language, yet they were not part of any pre-Amendment offering strategy sessions.”

Why? For fear that they would rat out the Republican effort to Harry Reid.

RedState has obtained a series of emails between the NRA and congressional aides wherein the NRA is clearly pushing for a Nancy Pelosi backed language to undermine Tom Coburn backed language. In the chain of emails, the NRA says it wants a House version because Senator Coburn’s would have unintended consequences. What were those unintended consequences?

From: NRA
To: Congressional Aide
Sent: Mon May 18, 2009
Subject: Re: Congress Poised to Restore Common Sense Second Amendment Rights

The Coburn amendment to H.R. 627 is open to criticism and potential problems since it is not limited to concealed firearms, or even concealable firearms. Rifles, shotguns, legally possessed machineguns or destructive devices, could all be carried if the person is not prohibited and the person complies with state law.

Two very important points to consider on the language:

1. Limiting to concealed handguns squares with the motive for the federal rule change to legalize self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges - i.e. the growth of right to carry states.

2. Concealed (and therefore concealable) handguns are less likely than rifles or shotguns to be used for poaching - unlike in national forests and BLM lands where hunting is frequent and legal.

Note the NRA uses the words “destructive devices.”

Let’s ignore the fact that the inability to conceal a rifle might actually be of benefit to park rangers should poaching happen. Instead, let’s focus on the National Rifle Association trying to prohibit rifles from national parks.

What. The. Heck?

 

[bthest86]

What's wrong with using the term destructive devices (explosives, bores <1/2 inches, etc)? That's what the '34 NFA calls them.

 

[Davek1977]

Why is it suddenly popular to try to disparage the one group that has, rather successfully I might add, dedicated itself to protecting our rights? Nothing I read has inspired me to burn my NRA membership, and well...the source material isn't exactly unimpeachable in its present form....its going to take more than heresay and rumor to turn me against an organization I value as much as the NRA.....and I too don't understand the hubbub concerning "destructive devices" as that is what certain weapons are classified as under current law. What term would you rather be used that would still be legally accurate in this context? I can't think of any, and won't condemn the NRA for using language that is reflected in our current laws regulating firearms. It would be one thing is the NRA was somehow implying rifles were "destructive devices" but thats a far cry from what was actually stated. If you are going to attack it based on the use of the phrase "destructive devices" I'd suggest trying to find another angle, because that line of debate seems futile

 

[45bthompson]

It sounds like the NRA is worried about people poaching in national parks. They should be. When hunters are criminals it makes all responsible gun owners look bad. If these emails are true it seems that the NRA supports the right to carry concealed for defense but just doesn't want it to seem like people have a right to poach.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

When I see "Shocking!" in a headline on a tabloid in the checkout line, I usually go ho-hum. I guess it takes a lot to shock me. Like something really shocking.

NRA is concentrating on uniform rules on right-to-carry for self defense in national parks: if it's legal in the state, the national park should recognize the state law on RTC.

It is not like rifles or shotguns were legal in national parks and the NRA fought to outlaw long guns. National Parks were a gun-free zone for self-defense and hunting last I heard. Allowing long guns for self defense in the parks, sounds like perfect cover for poachers. Better bet the antis would jump on that one.

Two friends of my brother stopped at a scenic overlook on their way to band practice; they were carjacked and murdered. Since then, when I go into any area where police are not present and especially wilderness areas that are often cell phone dead zones I wear my revolver. If I carry a rifle or shotgun, it's hunting season. I sometimes take a .22 mag pump rifle or M1 carbine for protection against coyotes, feral dogs or rabid animals on private land, but not in a national park. The right-to-carry concealed handgun under state law is a reasonable first step for gun rights in national parks, but long guns is a huge leap.

Compared to 1969 (before NRA was really organised as a gun lobby) our rights were curtailed badly by antigun do-gooders oblivious to the unintended consequences of their selfrighteous policies. The NRA by cautious step-by-step has protected gun rights since then. One stupid step--poachers or 20mm Lahti antitank guns in National Parks--could set us back.

PLUS that DISCLOSE act could not silence the NRA without silencing AARP, Humane Society and Sierra Club and the dems could not allow AARP, Humane Society and Sierra Club without allowing NRA. Given that the NRA spendt millions fighting (successfully) to overturn McCain-Finegold, its "deal" not to fight DISCLOSE (because it was a dead issue anyway) was not as evil as both sides try to paint it.

 

[Manco]

Overall, I'm pleased with the NRA's cautious, prudent approach to the long-term--really eternal--struggle for the RKBA. While they sometimes play political games and even dabble in political correctness, they're good at what they do, always have the big picture in mind, and seem very results-oriented as opposed to philosophically pure and unassailable. That's good because we need to cover every angle we can.

 

[Art Eatman]

I believe that email is real and really from the NRA about like I believe that Sen. Schumer will support a national right-to-carry law.

Sorry, but that looks like total BS to me. Just a bunch of NRA bashing for the sake of making some sort of political points in the old, worn-out tradition of hustling more money for a pro-gun group.

"They're bad! Support us! We're good! Send money!"

Enough...